There are a couple of interesting quotes in this article. I wonder if the President believes this about Lois Lerner? Here's the money quote (so to speak): Go Blazers
so oldguy... which of these conservative political groups deserved the tax-exempt status? The law specifies that you have to be "exclusively" engaged in social welfare (like clothing the homeless) to qualify. So regardless of what your politics are, if you're involved in promoting political agendas you're disqualified for 501c4 status STOMP
As I mentioned in the other IRS thread, I'm not against the IRS investigating the status of non-profit groups....if it is done even handedly. Did the IRS jerk around any of the "shadowy liberal groups controlled by seasoned Democratic political operatives" funded by George Soros? This isn't about the merits of non-profit, tax exempt status. This is about whether there was abuse of power to target groups that didn't/don't agree with this administration. I am NOT ok with the incumbent using the IRS to harass opposition groups. How can you think that is a good thing for America? Go Blazers
the only group that was denied 501c4 status was a liberal group out of SF called Emerge America So it's not about political groups lying on their applications so as to receive tax free status/bilking the country out of taxes they owe, it's about whatever load of crap Fox "News" conspiracy nonsense you're choosing to become outraged over nice strawman. Not only have I expressed nothing that would indicate I'm for the IRS being used as a political weapon by the Administration, but it's been proven conclusively that this wasn't the case. In fact the IRS higher up in the Cincinnati office who has claimed to make the call to target Tea Party groups is a Republican http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/david/cummings-calls-issas-irs-bluff-ill-release-t what I'm for is political groups on both sides not lying to the Government to avoid paying taxes they owe. I'm for denying this status to groups that don't qualify and prosecuting those who lied on their application claiming that they wouldn't engage in politics. Of course one side did this a whole lot more then the other STOMP
I wish I had more time to comment on this post, but life has kept me away for a couple of days. But, until I have time to respond properly, how about you providing one shred of evidence of that conclusive proof you’re claiming. You must be one of the three people that still get your news from MSNBC. Go Blazers
I agree. Stomps posts are very one-sided. Kind of embarrassing really that his position is so extreme. He is effectively saying, "I don't agree with the groups that were targeted, I don't like those groups that were targeted, I don't like that those groups were applying for tax exempt status, so whatever happened to them or didn't happen to them, fuck em, I don't care." Nice.
sorry nope. If I did, that would be the same sort of partisan noise we get from the opinion page of the WSJ... you do know who owns the WSJ right? it doesn't seem you've read the link I provided. The conclusive proof is the testimony from IRS employees involved in this which for some reason Congressman Issa won't release. Its supposed to directly counter his fishing trip assertions that groups being targeted for review were directed to do so by the White House. The link relays that a supervisor in the Cincinatti office who identifies himself as a conservative Republican who has served in the IRS for 21 years claims to be responsible for the tactic. Congressman Cummings is having it released tomorrow (6/13), so maybe we just wait and see whats what? yawn... you continue to suck at reading comprehension. I want all tax cheats identified and punished regardless of their politics. I don't place much blame an understaffed office for trying to sort through an avalanch of new applications from groups trying for a tax status that they clearly didn't deserve, especially when they directly lie on their application saying they won't be engaging in politics. What an extremist I am... STOMP
Agreed. The law for 501c4 status is very clear. If a group isn't "exclusively" engaged in social welfare, they don't qualify. STOMP
Actually, yes, I did read the link you provided. It is so far from being "conclusive proof" it is laughable. In fact, Congressman Cummings has backed away from releasing the transcripts himself by the end of the week. http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/elijah-cummings-darrell-issa-irs-transcript-92746.html#ixzz2W7ynfUA5 In fact, Cummings has also backed away from his statement that the scandal is 'solved'. http://reason.com/24-7/2013/06/13/rep-cummings-backs-off-claims-the-irs-sc Conclusive proof? Come on. For the record, I haven't watched FOX news in over two years, but don't let the truth stand in the way of making shit up about someone you don't even know to try to make a point. Also, in your first reply to me, you imply that the conservative groups have done a lot more lying to get tax exempt status. Could you provide a link to show that there is any truth to that, whatsoever? In fact, you started out saying a liberal group was the only one that was denied tax exempt status. Seems like the IRS would not agree with your analysis. Go MSNBC
Actually, the law is clear, but not to what WE think it should be. An organization, like a volunteer fire department, should clearly qualify. Yet the morons in city hall decide they want to pass some law that's egregious to volunteer firemen. So they are allowed to advertise their displeasure and propose their own ballot initiatives, etc. So the IRS has been sued over this very thing and the IRS lost. They have to allow sketchy organizations the status. Lots of good stuff at the IRS site about it: http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Other-Non-Profits/Social-Welfare-Organizations Seeking legislation germane to the organization's programs is a permissible means of attaining social welfare purposes. Thus, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may further its exempt purposes through lobbying as its primary activity without jeopardizing its exempt status. An organization that has lost its section 501(c)(3) status due to substantial attempts to influence legislation may not thereafter qualify as a section 501(c)(4) organization. In addition, a section 501(c)(4) organization that engages in lobbying may be required to either provide notice to its members regarding the percentage of dues paid that are applicable to lobbying activities or pay a proxy tax. For more information, see Lobbying Issues . The promotion of social welfare does not include direct or indirect participation or intervention in political campaigns on behalf of or in opposition to any candidate for public office. However, a section 501(c)(4) social welfare organization may engage in some political activities, so long as that is not its primary activity. However, any expenditure it makes for political activities may be subject to tax under section 527(f). For further information regarding political and lobbying activities of section 501(c) organizations, see Election Year Issues, Political Campaign and Lobbying Activities of IRC 501(c)(4), (c)(5), and (c)(6) Organizations, and Revenue Ruling 2004-6.
There are hundreds of articles about this scandal. Read more about it. You don't know what you are talking about.
And you suck at logic. Listen to yourself. "tax cheats" You presume to start off with. No evidence. No proof. And, the law isn't as clear as you make it out to be. It is not straightforward or simple, which is how Washington works these day. You can't quote a single sentence in virtually any law and know anything about how it works. "understaffed office" Really? Think. Give it a moment. What happened here? They pulled out not a sample, not those that were failed some screen, not those who were snitched on by insiders. Nope they pulled EVERY SINGLE FUCKING APPLICATION (well, as long as it was Tea Party or Patriot, etc.) Is that the approach and "understaffed office" would take? Of course not. The Left Wing Propaganda Apologist Talking Points which is all you are regurgitating, don't make logical or consistent sense. It is just a bunch of horseshit thrown out there to confuse, obfuscate, delay, etc. You claim is absurd on its face.
Cummings is a long-time partisan hack who has no real credibility in Washington. Just sent out there to spew nonsense. And he already backtracked ("clarified") his ridiculous statements, as he had nothing to back them up. He has no proof and his claims and statements are not made under oath, and he has no legal obligation to make truthful statements. He is immune to charges of libel and slander. So, take what he said for all it is worth based on his legal liability (none) and his reputation (partisan).
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/wp/2013/06/18/rep-elijah-cummings-releases-a-full-irs-interview-transcript/ So, Congressman Cummings released the transcripts today. How about you show me the conclusive proof you were citing above? Go Blazers
